The California Appellate Law Podcast

In addition to having more than 100 published opinions and close to 100 oral arguments to his name, Jeremy B. Rosen is the managing partner of the Horvitz & Levy LLP San Francisco office. Jeremy is also nationally recognized for his First Amendment and anti-SLAPP work. Jeremy joins Jeff and Tim on the California Appellate Law Podcast to discuss:How does Horvitz & Levy sustain a practice that produces hundreds of high-quality appellate briefs annually while maintaining a clear institutional philosophy on drafting, editing, and oral advocacy?Part of the answer: Jeremy explains the firm's two-person brief model: one lead lawyer reads the full record and does the primary drafting, while a supervising lawyer provides strategy and heavy editing.Another part of the answer: Avoid committee-style drafting, common at large firms. This often produces briefs that lack a coherent voice.Who argues the case? Jeremy shares the firm's strong preference that the lawyer who drafted the brief should argue the case—not a senior partner brought in for name recognition.How to prepare for oral argument? Jeremy shares how he prepares “modules” for each topic so he is ready for wherever the panel wants to go.Oral argument strategy: If the bench is cold and asks no questions, speak for two or three minutes and sit down.Jeremy also discusses the responsible use of AI in appellate practice, noting that he now uses it to generate oral argument questions and sharpen briefs, but warns that he has already handled two appeals involving AI-generated false citations filed by opposing counsel.How to prepare for an oral argument when you inherit someone else's brief.The responsible use of AI in editing briefs and the dangers of relying on it without verification.Why a federal anti-SLAPP statute has stalled despite bipartisan support.How do you collaborate on appellate briefs and oral argument prep in your shop?

Justice Ming Chin wrote more majority opinions in his first decade on the California Supreme Court than any colleague—then retired to discover that mediation feels a lot like his first judicial assignment in family law, where the goal was bringing people together rather than telling them what to do.Justice Ming’s biggest pet peeve as a mediator: attorneys who won’t share their briefs.Justice Ming also shares:What makes a good petition for review? Hint: think about Justice Broussard saying "if I get one more piece of paper, I'm going to scream."Why robust internal debate produces better opinions than rubber-stamping.How his experience trying construction arbitrations with expert panels—not lawyers—informs his view that California Supreme Court justices sometimes get arbitration law wrong.Other highlights:The petition reality check—your first paragraph is your only shot: Kitchen-sink petitions go nowhere.Why your petition for review was denied: Lacking in merit? Maybe. But sometimes the Court wants the conflict to "percolate." Or it needs a better vehicle.And don’t overlook that a low-quality petition foreshadows the quality of your merits brief—which could depress chances of review.Federal certification beats petition denial odds: While the Court denies hundreds of petitions for review weekly, Justice Chin "cannot think of any" certified questions from federal courts that were denied during his tenure—making certification an underused path to California Supreme Court review that practitioners should consider more often.Justice Chin's senior partner returned his first brief "with blood all over it" and taught him to "take out all the excess words"—a lesson he carried through 450+ Supreme Court opinions.Unlike other branches of government, appellate courts must explain their reasoning in detail, but that doesn't mean 150-page opinions.Listen to the episode to learn what former Supreme Court justices see that no one else can, why depublication tapered down as a lawmaking tool during his tenure, and how Sargon's expert gatekeeping role—authored by Justice Chin—threaded the needle between passive acceptance and becoming "a thirteenth juror."What question would you ask Justice Chin or one of his colleagues?